Comment from an evangelical presbyterian perspective and an orthodox confessionally reformed outlook.

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Perplexed
by Purple

I wondered why the Moderators of the GA of the Church of
Scotland have taken to wearing purple?

Is it because it looks better on TV or that it stands out in
the crowd. Historically the expense of
purple dyes limited this colour to the clothes of the rich and powerful, hence
imperial purple.

Or, perhaps it is a throwback to the counter culture of the
60s and 70s and the spirit of rebellion.
In the interest of openness I must confess that in my young and rebellious
days I had a purple clerical vest that I could wear underneath an open necked
shirt. I thought I looked pretty cool.
(I could not have been that rebellious if I actually wore a clerical collar, a
practice I soon discarded.)

Perhaps there is a hidden psychological significance in
purple? I looked this up on BBC under
psychology of colour. There it informs
me that it is “associated with: creativity, fertility, joy, but also magic,
evil, death and sex.” No, can’t see Moderators putting out that subliminal message.

Or perhaps there is a bit of ecclesiastical keeping up with
the Jones here, in particular our southern neighbours.

Wikipedia helpfully points out that “during
the 20th century Anglican bishops began wearing purple (officially violet)
shirts as a sign of their office. Along with the pectoral cross and episcopal
ring, this marks them off from other clergy in appearance.”

So why do Presbyterians, who believe in the parity of
ministers, wear purple?

Natural
Justice or Divine Law

It is interesting to see how the
concept of "natural justice" is being used by some evangelicals to justify the
failure to apply divine law, especially in the case of church discipline.

One would have imagined that
evangelicals, especially those in the Reformed tradition, would have been committed
to the principle of the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture, and the Law
of God as revealed in Scripture as the supreme guide to our conduct.

Now, however, a new principle
comes into play, that of “natural justice”.
Just what is natural justice, and does it stand over divine law as the
ultimate arbitrator of moral conduct in general, and discipline within the
church in particular?

Certainly Reformed theology has a
positive place for natural law. However, this law is not seen as independent of God,
but rather as a manifestation of God’s law revealed in man’s moral
consciousness. Both biblical revelation and natural law originate in God and
can therefore not contradict each other.

There is a technical, legal sense
in which the term “natural justice” is used. It embodies three principles: the
no-one should be condemned without a fair hearing, that they should not be
judged on the basis of personal bias, (their own or other’s), and that they
should be judged on the basis of reasonable evidence. See, for example:

Now, when it is suggested at the
recent Church of Scotland General Assembly that any office-bearers who have
entered into a gay marriage should be exempt from all discipline because the
church has not yet definitively expressed its mind on gay marriage, which of
the three principles are being violated if discipline were taken against those
in gay marriages? There is no suggestion that anyone be disciplined without a fair
hearing, or that personal bias alone should be the basis of such discipline, or
that reasonable evidence in terms of the teaching of Scripture and the actual
facts of the case would not be the basis of any judgement.

Would we, for example, in a
comparable case suggested that if the church were to set up a commission to
consider the issue of zoophilia that office-bearers who had engaged or were
engaging in bestiality before the delivery and acceptance of such a report be
exempt from discipline on the basis of natural justice?

The concept of “natural justice”
is a smokescreen. It is basically
saying, “We don’t like what God’s word says and we do not think it just to
apply its standards in the case of ecclesiastical discipline.” But sin is sin,
and no matter whether the individual is or is not ordained before a certain
date, discipline is required of the church to maintain its purity and its
credibility.

If natural justice is seen to override
Scripture, then the supreme standard is no longer the voice of God speaking by
his Spirit through his word.

Confessionally, Reformed evangelicals are committed to the
statement of the Westminster Confession, “The supreme judge by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be
examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy
Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (1:10)

Evangelicals have been hoodwinked
or at best have been naive if they think that natural justice precludes
ecclesiastical discipline. But, perhaps
they are simply unwilling to admit that they belong to a denomination that can
no longer exhibit one of Knox’s marks of a true church – biblical discipline. They cannot bring a discipline charge against
those office-bearer’s who engage in sexual immorality, nor if truth be told
against any of their own members who conduct themselves in such a manner. After
all, a member could argue that if such conduct is acceptable in a minister, why
not in a member. They could appeal to
Presbytery or to the General Assembly against such narrow and bigoted discipline
because, yes, “It is contrary to natural justice.”

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

The
Church of Scotland

No Witch
Hunts Here

It was interesting to see the caving of the evangelicals to
the new politically correct agenda.
Having confirmed on the Saturday, the first day of General Assembly,
that practising homosexuals in civil partnerships were eligible under certain
conditions to serve as Deacons and Ministers, the GA then moved on to consider
the new legal situation introduced by homosexual marriage. A provision to alter the new legislation to
include homosexual marriage as well as civil partnerships was passed and sent
down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act.

However, just in case
there happened to be any practising homosexuals who had already defied the GA
and entered into a homosexual marriage – perish the thought that any gay activist
would so defy the Assembly – there was an addendum passed to say that they
would be immune from any discipline just like those in civil partnerships. It later transpired that one such gay
activist had already entered into a gay marriage:

I am sure that the ex-moderator
who proposed this protective moratorium had absolutely no idea that this had
happened; we could not imagine the liberal establishment of the Kirk failing to
give such information to the GA if it was in possession of the facts.

Just to show how “nice” the nasty evangelicals really were he
was seconded by the Rev Gordon Kennedy, of the Covenant Fellowship.

In reporting this, the Covenant Fellowship website explains:

“The moratorium provisions were then proposed
by the Very Rev John Chalmers and seconded by Rev Gordon Kennedy, helpfully
stressing the need for natural justice to apply, and reinforcing the fact that
a witch hunt was on no-one’s agenda. Once tidied up, it was passed
overwhelmingly.”

So
what exactly is a witch hunt? Is this
ecclesiastical code for church discipline?
Are the evangelicals saying that they are perfectly satisfied not to
pursue discipline against the sexually immoral ministers and deacons in their
midst? Given the fact that they cannot
actually bring discipline charges on these matters anyway, church law having
clarified that such conduct is now within the orbit of morally acceptable
behaviour in a broad church, are they saying that those who dare to suggest
such a course of action are witch hunters, pursuing with a vengeance the
innocent ministers who are engaging in such practices?

It
seems to me that there are two choices.

You
can follow Scripture:

“When you
are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the
power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the
Lord...I
am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if
he is guilty of sexual immorality.” ( 1 Corinthians 5)

Or you can follow the old
Scottish ecclesiastical proverb, newly re-discovered, “Let sleeping sodomites lie.”

But then, discipline would not be
nice and what better way to dismiss biblical church discipline than by falsely categorising
it as a form of witch hunt and by setting up an antithesis between “natural
justice” and biblical church discipline.

Interestingly, I noted as I was
writing this the first episode of a new series of the Heidlecast in which Scott
Clark speaks “Of Nice and Men”.

Sunday, 17 May 2015

Church
of Scotland R.I.P

It is difficult to know what to say in this situation. I left
the denomination 20 years ago, in part over the promotion of homosexual
activity. My only surprise is that it
has taken 20 years for the legislation to catch up with the reality on the
ground.

There are still those who are saying “We will stay in and
fight. We will disobey the G.A.”

My question is whether there are any legal means left to
fight. There is no discipline possible
for those who practice or promote homosexual sin; but then neither is there any
discipline available against those who promote heretical teaching and deny the
Gospel.

What do the evangelicals mean when they say they will disobey
the Assembly? Will they refuse to recognise the status of or work with those in
same sex relationships? Perhaps; but
will they refuse to recognise and work with those who promote and support such
unbiblical behaviour. Probably not; because
to exist within an apostate denomination you need to be willing to compromise
with heretics.

Do they really want to engage in a civil war within the Church
of Scotland, with all the pressure this will bring on their ministries? Or, would it not be better to separate and
join with an evangelical Presbyterian body where your energies are not exhausted
in fighting the denomination but rather focused on preaching the Gospel and
promoting the Kingdom.

The Church of Scotland is just a denomination, and as far as I
am concerned an apostate denomination.
It is not the church in
Scotland. A false ecclesiology refuses
to recognise that the denomination is not the church.

What of new candidates for the ministry – will they be told to
“hide” their opposition to active homosexuality and refusal to recognise this
new law or the ministries it enables.
The denomination can rightly refuse those who will not be subject to the
law of the Kirk.

If the evangelicals want to work towards and fight for a
national, evangelical Reformed church then let them come and join us in the
Free Church of Scotland and together with us help to realise that vision. We can work together. Better this than to waste your energy on a
denominational cause that cannot be won.

When a ship is sinking, holed below the water line, the pumps having
failed and the vessel listing to the point of capsizing, then the sensible
passenger takes to the lifeboats for the preservation of life and safety. I am sure that any leader of the Covenant
Fellowship /Forward Together who might just happen to be on a cruise at this
time would have the sense to know when to abandon a sinking ship – I hope that
they might have the sense to know when
to abandon a sinking and apostate denomination.

I was preaching recently on the
humiliation of Christ from the Shorter Catechism:

Q . 27. In what did Christ's
humiliation consist?

A. Christ's humiliation consisted
in being born, and that in a poor circumstance; in being subject to God's law; in
undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God and the curse of death
on the cross; in being buried; and in continuing under the power of death for a
time.”

It did strike me forcibly how
pseudo-Christian Liberalism must strip this doctrine of its truth and
power.

For them Christ was not humiliated
in his birth, for he has no pre-incarnate existence and was not conceived by the
Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. A mere human Christ has no
pre-existence prior to conception. If Christ has no eternal pre-existence then
there is no act of voluntary humiliation in his being born of woman.

Furthermore, there is their high
handed and contemptuous dismissal of Christ bearing the wrath of God. We cannot
possibly sing the words written by Keith Getty:

“Till on that cross as Jesus died

The wrath of God was satisfied

For every sin on Him was laid

Here in the death of Christ I
live.”

Liberals must therefore remove
any notion of Christ’s voluntary humiliation in vicariously bearing and
satisfying God’s wrath on behalf of his elect. Christ’s death is no longer a “cursed
death”, but merely a tragic injustice perpetrated by the Jewish leaders and the
Roman authorities. He cannot bear the curse in our place for there is no curse
to be borne.

Although Liberalism accepts the
actual death of Christ as a fact of history, it cannot say “he continued under
the power of death for a time.” There is
no terminus for death’s hold on Christ, for there can be no bodily resurrection.

So for Liberalism the re-written
and revised catechism question must simply read, “Christ’s humiliation consists in
his low condition, (poverty) and his undergoing the miseries of this life,
(suffering), and then he died.”

Tragic, yes; saving, no!

His
condition merely reflects the condition of the poor and suffering throughout human
history. For Liberalism salvation is not by spiritual redemption but by social
action to eradicate poverty and alleviate suffering. The Gospel and its
proclamation is displaced by social action and political rhetoric. This is part
of the reason why, as Machen pointed out many years ago, Liberalism is not
Christianity.

Monday, 11 May 2015

Reaffirming the Doctrine of Scripture

“It is
not strange that upon the Word of God all the forces of the foes of Christianity
should be massed. If confidence in that Word can be undermined ; if, by subtlety
and sophistry, its infallible inspiration may be made to appear like an old
wives' fable or groundless tradition ; if in any way men may feel at liberty,
like Jehudi, to use a penknife on the sacred roll and cut out of it whatever is
offensive to the proud reason or the wayward will of the natural man the Devil
will have achieved his greatest triumph.”

(A T Pierson, ed “The Inspired
Word”)

Each generation needs to reaffirm
afresh the doctrine of Scripture and to revisit our confessional statements
that we might be firmly grounded on what it means to hold a biblical doctrine
of Scripture.

I don’t read a lot of popular modern theology, for often it is simply a restatement of old truth but in fresh
clothing. While I myself prefer a policy
of “ad fontes”, going back to seminal
works on biblical inspiration, I recognise the invaluable role that such modern
restatements perform for the new generation.

Being a patriotic Scot I have
chosen to turn from my usual parsimonious practice – the old books cost me
nothing – and indulge myself in reading Sinclair Ferguson’s new book on
Scripture, “From the Mouth of God”. I am
pleased to say he says nothing new; no radical departures from Reformed
theology or hip reinterpretations of the doctrine of Scripture. What he gives is a fresh and vital
restatement of these truths and a practical and experiential application of
this vital area of Christian doctrine. I
highly commend it.

It seems to be the season for
conferences on Scripture. Good! I have
been ploughing my way through numerous addresses by a rich variety of speakers,
all sharing a common commitment to the inspiration, author, clarity and power
of Scripture. This is foundational, and
I highly recommend the following sources:

This strange providence of so
many organisations pursuing a common theme shows that the doctrine of
Scripture, so under attack in neo-evangelicalism, is being boldly reaffirmed. I
hope you enjoy some or even all of these addresses. I can think of fewer wiser investments of our
time.

Sunday, 10 May 2015

Yesterday was a most enjoyable
and beneficial day spent at the Scottish Reformed Conference. We were blessed
with solid expositions of the Word of God from Steven Curry and Kevin DeYoung.

They gave fairly broad brush
expositions of Matthew 5, 6 and 7.
Steven spoke on the dangers of hypocrisy from Matthew 6, challenging the
congregation with their heart attitude in regard to giving, praying and fasting. Kevin dealt with the commitment of Christ to
Scripture and his authority in teaching.
The primacy, authority and clarity of Scripture were underlined and
emphasised.

This is what the church in Scotland
needs: solid, spiritual exposition of the Word of God.

Meanwhile, in St George’s Tron
Church of Scotland an alternative was on offer.
This is the building where Eric Alexander and Sinclair Ferguson
ministered. When the congregation left
over the Church of Scotland’s abandonment of Scripture and embracing of active
homosexual conduct the denomination seized the property and refused to
negotiate its sale to the congregation. Instead, the Kirk established a new
congregation and moved in a new minister heavily subsidized by the denomination.

So what is the pattern of
ministry in this new congregation? The
banner outside the building says it all:

So there you are. No mention of Scripture but instead a
mishmash of new age charismatic heresy.

Meanwhile the true Tron church
continues to minister the Word of God at their new location, probably the
largest evangelical congregation in Glasgow.

When you reject the authority,
clarity and sufficiency of Scripture it is but an easy road to charismatic
confusion. Liberalism and charismatic new revelation can co-exist in an
apostate denomination; what they share is a rejection of the finality and sufficiency of
Scripture.

Our hope is that the few truly
Reformed men in the national denomination will realise that their true
fellowship is not with those who supplant or supplement Scripture, but with
those who uphold the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture. Our prayers are with them as they face a
forthcoming GA where the rejection of Scripture will be formalised and
finalised. They will try to resist these
moves, and for this we commend them. But
what will they do if the national church ignores their appeals and continues on
the road of the rejection of Scripture.
I noted with interest that Kevin DeYoung made clear his own congregation’s
course of action in a similar situation – they are leaving in order to maintain
a truly biblical testimony.

About Me

With degrees in both philosophy and theology, I have lived and worked in the UK, West Africa (working in theological education) and the USA. As a Teaching Elder I served for 19 years in the Church of Scotland and 4 years in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (USA). I am a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, and a member in St Andrews Free Church, Fife.

I am married to my wonderful wife Aileen, who has supported and moulded me over 40 years of marriage - an ongoing project that may yet pay dividends, although it requires great patience on her part.